inrush_current負載開關控速上升時的充電電流、峰值電流、能量與脈衝 I²t（mode=slew），或電容直接接電源時的串聯 R-L-C 步階電流（mode=direct）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ct | No | CT 腳電容（ctsel≠none 時用）（pF） | |
| lh | No | 線路電感（direct）（nH） | |
| rl | No | 負載電阻（0＝不接）（Ω） | |
| rs | No | 線路＋電源內阻（direct）（mΩ） | |
| tr | No | 輸出上升時間（10–90%，ctsel=none 時用）（µs） | |
| esr | No | 電容 ESR（direct）（mΩ） | |
| vin | No | 輸入電壓（V） | |
| cout | No | 輸出電容（µF） | |
| mode | No | slew＝負載開關控速、direct＝直接接電容 | slew |
| ctsel | No | 用 CT 腳電容決定上升時間：none／t918／t965 | none |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the output quantities per branch: charging current, peak current, energy and pulse I²t for slew; series R-L-C step current for direct. It says nothing about units, sign conventions, or any failure/limit behavior, so the disclosure is partial rather than rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with no preamble, front-loading the slew case before the direct case and using the mode values as anchors. It is dense with parentheticals but each clause carries information; no filler sentences to trim.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Ten parameters with defaults and no output schema, so the description must at least tell the agent what comes back — which it does at a high level. It omits the conditional parameter interactions (ctsel≠none uses ct, ct=220 requires tr) beyond what the schema already notes, so it is adequate but not fully self-sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all ten parameters, including the ct/ctsel and tr conditionality. The description adds only the high-level slew/direct semantics, duplicating the mode parameter's own schema description rather than extending it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names the computed resource (inrush current metrics) and splits it into two clearly-scoped operating regimes (mode=slew vs mode=direct), which no sibling covers. It stops short of an explicit verb like "計算/compute" — it reads as a noun list of outputs rather than "this tool calculates X" — but an agent can still identify the tool unambiguously against crosstalk, impedance, xtal_load_cap, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The parenthetical mappings (slew＝負載開關控速, direct＝電容直接接電源) effectively tell the agent which mode corresponds to which physical scenario, which is real usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not framing for the tool itself and no exclusion of cases (e.g. what to do when ct is not used), leaving selection guidance to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.